3 ms·

This is a relatively recent development in human life. Roman women didn't usually live past 30. And it wasn't until the XX century that average life expectancy

by forinti 16y ago

This is a relatively recent development in human life. Roman women didn't usually live past 30. And it wasn't until the XX century that average life expectancy exceeded 40 years. EDIT: And 50% of Roman women died giving birth. So there weren't many grandmothers around.

LeBleu 16y ago
This is a common misconception caused by quoting mean life expectancy at birth, when the distribution is highly asymmetrical. High infant death rates cause low life expectancy at birth, but the life expectancy if you live to age 5 can be massively longer. A 5 year old ancient Roman was expected to live to 48. About 35% of the ancient Roman population was over 30 years old. The highest listed age is 76, which is the life expectancy of a 70 year old, an age that about 1 in 50 ancient Romans achieved. http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#The_Popular_Misconception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#The_Popular_Mis...
- forinti 16y ago
  Excellent point. But that still doesn't leave many grandmothers around (1 in 3 at best?). And they didn't have many years beyond their reproductive age.
  - blahedo 16y ago
    Um, think about your numbers a bit more. 1 in 3 what? If 1/3 of the population was over 30 and the average lifespan of people living past infancy was 48, there were probably a lot of grandmothers around. Especially if women were having their first children in their late teens, which is just a guess but seems likely.
nkurz 16y ago
Do you have any citation for the statistic you edit to add? The best I can find in a quick search is that maternal mortality in ancient Rome was about 10-15 per 1000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6BOQZirLCWgC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335 http://books.google.com/books?id=6BOQZirLCWgC&pg=PA335&#...). I don't know the average number of pregnancies per woman, but 50% total mortality seems at odds with this.

by forinti 16y ago

LeBleu 16y ago

This is a common misconception caused by quoting mean life expectancy at birth, when the distribution is highly asymmetrical. High infant death rates cause low life expectancy at birth, but the life expectancy if you live to age 5 can be massively longer. A 5 year old ancient Roman was expected to live to 48. About 35% of the ancient Roman population was over 30 years old. The highest listed age is 76, which is the life expectancy of a 70 year old, an age that about 1 in 50 ancient Romans achieved. http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#The_Popular_Misconception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#The_Popular_Mis...

forinti 16y ago
Excellent point. But that still doesn't leave many grandmothers around (1 in 3 at best?). And they didn't have many years beyond their reproductive age.
- blahedo 16y ago
  Um, think about your numbers a bit more. 1 in 3 what? If 1/3 of the population was over 30 and the average lifespan of people living past infancy was 48, there were probably a lot of grandmothers around. Especially if women were having their first children in their late teens, which is just a guess but seems likely.

nkurz 16y ago

Do you have any citation for the statistic you edit to add? The best I can find in a quick search is that maternal mortality in ancient Rome was about 10-15 per 1000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6BOQZirLCWgC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335 http://books.google.com/books?id=6BOQZirLCWgC&pg=PA335&#...). I don't know the average number of pregnancies per woman, but 50% total mortality seems at odds with this.